Last week I posted a mere “news” article about the fact that Santo’s Bonacci is being searched for by the local police. For posting such an article I got called a few different names and a lot of the “Freemen” came out to point out my ignorance and cowardice. I’m not sure how trying to get people to stop making such legally invalid claims as “I’m a man” and “I refuse to be recognized as a legal person” becomes cowardice but according to many of these people it apparently is.
The fact that I have stood in court and met with local Crown Prosecutors face to face and dealt with accusations apparently means nothing. The fact that in one year 3 of 4 charges were actually withdrawn and the fourth pseudo-victory only resulted in a conviction because the person I was advising decided to plea bargain to get out of prison. Even in that loss there were victories as the court recognized our unalienable rights to have who we want as counsel and they don’t have to come from the law society. I was further granted access to speak with the person in the holding cells which is a restricted area for only security officers and legal counsel. Further the most heinous of the offenses were withdrawn by the crown and a mere mischief and breach of recognizance were the convictions with time served and some parole. The conviction on that matter wasn’t my recommendation but as a proper counselor you are only ever advising and the decisions always stay with the person liable.
It seems to me, however, that to these “freeman” people, using Legal Facts is something only a coward would do. A person with courage would supposedly do the opposite then. At least I suppose that’s what they are trying to say to me. They continue to make claims that I need to “abandon the name” and run from the assailants. They claim that using the legal name is fraud but I have never seen anyone provide any evidence of that statement. I believe I heard once someone say a lawyer told them that but who in their right mind would believe anything a lawyer says? Lawyers also claim that they have jurisdiction over private persons and businesses but I have read in several superior court cases here in Canada that “legislature can not regulate private persons or businesses”. These decisions have “been ruled emphatically” by the courts and “are no longer open to interpretation”.
I’ll let you look up your own legal institute references on this as you probably aren’t here on Canada as I am. If you are do a search on the CanLii website for section 32 of the CCRF and you’ll find tons of information. The concept of “the laws apply because the laws apply” in no more than circular argument and as such a logical fallacy. Marc Stevens will show you that in under 30 seconds. As such I encourage you to stop listening to unsupported fallacious reasoning and do your own research. In fact, I extend that challenge to you in that when you find a court decision or other statement proving or denying the laws apply to private persons, post it below in the comments section. First so you demonstrate that you are willing to do some actual research, or at least get the information in a manner suited to you, and secondly to help others see the reality of the world around us.
Yes the system is fake. Yes the laws of nature are superior to the laws of man. These aren’t even negotiated but rather held as self evident. If you want to factually win in court then you have to use arguments and reasoning that the accusers can recognize. That is not cowardice. That is smart, tactical, and in the long run, strategic thinking and it takes real courage to do so.
Rob
Well the fact is that both you and the so-called “Freeman” are in the wrong. First off “Freeman” is a copyrighted term, not held by these people. Although I don’t endorse people like Dean Clifford and Santos Bonacci, I do not which them harm or fed to the legal system in any way. They are just misguided souls who haven’t been fully exposed to the truth in knowing how to understanding or recognizing it. It’s their egos, stubbornness or arrogance that have clouded their judgment, which have placed them in the pickle they’re in. (Both situations can be resolved very easily by the way.)
For you Rob, you haven’t learned the true facts about the legal system and the intentions behind its creation. It’s an easy game to play if you know the rules and the rule is don’t play the game when you can’t win in their house. That simple. Once you avoid playing their game whether inside or outside the court you will walk away without a scratch each and every time. You just have to learn to recognize the trappings of the game with its limitation.
Did you know that “Common Law” can no longer exist, because the private person doesn’t exist any further? Common law was created in order to protect the status of the private person in regards to a class of people. But since a decree has been passed then that status no longer pertains to anyone or anybody and rightfully so. We are finally starting to correct ourselves and hopefully it is not too late. The person was a creation of man in order to control the masses. So now Common law has no application to anyone or anybody. That is why civil law was created was to control the general public.
There is so much to learn, but with the right open mind it doesn’t take a lot of effort to understand what is truly happening out there. People have to find out who they truly are before they can present themselves.
Here is good question for people to find the answer to. If you didn’t create something, then how can you play a part in it without permission or seeking it, but if you choose to volunteer in representing the liability to it, then do you not deserve to pay the price of admission?
Freeman is a word and words can’t be copyrighted first off, secondly Canada is a Common-law country, nation, whatever and the civil laws you refer to are subservient to them. (Quebec actually did get the separation demands they wanted and is a Civil “nation” with their own “national parliament”.) From what I hear you saying you must be one of those 14th amendment US citizens I keep hearing about. Fortunately I am not any kind of US citizen and I refuse to be represented by corporate leaders who run a company I don’t work for.
You are right about not playing in their courts and I try not to ever be in them but occasionally some psychopath who has no real understanding of jurisdiction drags me in and forces me to demand evidence I’m obligated to follow some rule a moron wrote in an imaginary place they call legislature. Being as they can’t provide the evidence the “laws” apply the prosecutors tend (3 for 3) to withdraw the charge which legally is an admission that they had no legal rights to make that charge in the first place.
It seems to me that you may actually believe the “laws” are real and that you must follow them. Well then I suppose that is true for you but you can not make it true for me unless and until you can provide evidence of such. I’ve asked that question of prosecutors locally and they can’t seem to provide such. If you claim such evidence does exist that some how it’s my “civic” duty to obey legislature then please provide such evidence and stop these silly arguments. Until then I’ll trust the superior court decisions that state “legislature can not regulate private persons or private businesses”.
Rob
“nation” I think is the key word here.